Fine-needle aspiration as an alternative to core needle biopsy for tumour molecular profiling in precision oncology: prospective comparative study of next-generation sequencing in cancer patients included in the SHIVA02 trial.
Biopsy, Fine-Needle
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
DNA Copy Number Variations
/ genetics
DNA, Neoplasm
/ genetics
Gene Expression Profiling
Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
Humans
Neoplasms
/ genetics
Precision Medicine
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
SHIVA02 trial
core biopsy
fine-needle aspiration
next-generation sequencing
precision medicine
tumour molecular profiling
Journal
Molecular oncology
ISSN: 1878-0261
Titre abrégé: Mol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101308230
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
27
04
2020
revised:
07
07
2020
accepted:
30
07
2020
pubmed:
5
8
2020
medline:
18
11
2021
entrez:
5
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
High-throughput molecular profiling of solid tumours using core needle biopsies (CNB) allows the identification of actionable molecular alterations, with around 70% success rate. Although several studies have demonstrated the utility of small biopsy specimens for molecular testing, there remains debate as to the sensitivity of the less invasive fine-needle aspiration (FNA) compared to CNB to detect molecular alterations. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the potential of FNA to detect such alterations in various tumour types as compared to CNB in cancer patients included in the SHIVA02 trial. An in-house amplicon-based targeted sequencing panel (Illumina TSCA 99.3 kb panel covering 87 genes) was used to identify pathogenic variants and gene copy number variations (CNV) in concomitant CNB and FNA samples obtained from 61 patients enrolled in the SHIVA02 trial (NCT03084757). The main tumour types analysed were breast (38%), colon (15%), pancreas (11%), followed by cervix and stomach (7% each). We report 123 molecular alterations (85 variants, 23 amplifications and 15 homozygous deletions) among which 98 (80%) were concordant between CNB and FNA. The remaining discordances were mainly related to deletions status, yet undetected alterations were not exclusively specific to FNA. Comparative analysis of molecular alterations in CNB and FNA showed high concordance in terms of variants as well as CNVs identified. We conclude FNA could therefore be used in routine diagnostics workflow and clinical trials for tumour molecular profiling with the advantages of being minimally invasive and preserve tissue material needed for diagnostic, prognostic or theranostic purposes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32750212
doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12776
pmc: PMC7782085
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Neoplasm
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03084757']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104-115Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Published by FEBS Press and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Nature. 2013 Jul 11;499(7457):214-218
pubmed: 23770567
PLoS Med. 2016 Dec 27;13(12):e1002201
pubmed: 28027327
Nat Med. 2019 May;25(5):751-758
pubmed: 31011205
Cancer. 2009 Oct 25;117(5):289-97
pubmed: 19711468
Nat Methods. 2012 Mar 04;9(4):357-9
pubmed: 22388286
Cancer Cell. 2017 Aug 14;32(2):185-203.e13
pubmed: 28810144
Gastroenterology. 2019 Jun;156(8):2242-2253.e4
pubmed: 30836094
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Cancer Cytopathol. 2017 Oct;125(10):786-794
pubmed: 28727266
Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Jul;121(7):361-9
pubmed: 23364874
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16(13):1324-34
pubmed: 26342236
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2018 Feb;57(2):70-79
pubmed: 29044880
Cancer Cytopathol. 2014 Feb;122(2):104-13
pubmed: 24227699
Nature. 2013 Sep 19;501(7467):338-45
pubmed: 24048066
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jan 15;23(2):379-386
pubmed: 27489289
J Mol Diagn. 2015 Nov;17(6):635-43
pubmed: 26319364
Mod Pathol. 2017 Apr;30(4):499-508
pubmed: 28084342
Int J Endocrinol. 2019 Feb 19;2019:4723958
pubmed: 30915113
Nature. 2019 May;569(7757):560-564
pubmed: 31118521
Biostatistics. 2011 Jul;12(3):413-28
pubmed: 21209153
Diagn Cytopathol. 2019 Nov;47(11):1138-1144
pubmed: 31313531
PLoS One. 2014 May 30;9(5):e98187
pubmed: 24878701
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Mar;6(3):451-8
pubmed: 21266922
J Leuk (Los Angel). 2013 Nov 18;1(4):1000124
pubmed: 24558642
J Urol. 2017 Jun;197(6):1396-1402
pubmed: 28093293
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Feb;162:28-34.e1
pubmed: 26556006
Cancer. 2015 Feb 15;121(4):631-9
pubmed: 25345567
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Jun 15;185(12):1316-22
pubmed: 22505743
Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):13236-47
pubmed: 26910888
Acta Inform Med. 2019 Jun;27(2):114-118
pubmed: 31452569
Cancer Discov. 2017 Jun;7(6):586-595
pubmed: 28365644
Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Jun;121(6):311-9
pubmed: 23225576
ESMO Open. 2018 Apr 06;3(3):e000339
pubmed: 29636991
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 27;13(4):e0196556
pubmed: 29702695
Bioinformatics. 2009 Sep 1;25(17):2283-5
pubmed: 19542151
Cancer Res. 2015 Apr 15;75(8):1541-7
pubmed: 25836717
Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Jun;143(6):879-88
pubmed: 25972331
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Oct 15;21(20):4536-44
pubmed: 26473189
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Dec 01;109(12):
pubmed: 29206995
J Hosp Manag Health Policy. 2019 Apr;3:
pubmed: 31187090
Cancer. 2005 Apr 25;105(2):101-9
pubmed: 15643601
Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 15;26(6):841-2
pubmed: 20110278
Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Sep;40(9):770-6
pubmed: 22888083
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23;38:139-146
pubmed: 30231307